AFT Michigan et al v. State of Michigan et al Doc.

4
Case 4:06-cv-10612-PVG-SDP Document 4 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

AFT MICHIGAN, JANE DOE 1, and JANE

DOE 2,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL CASE NO. 06-10612

v.
HONORABLE PAUL V. GADOLA
STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, and
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendants.
_______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRO

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 10, 2006. Contemporaneously, Plaintiffs filed

their motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a motion for a “Temporary Injunction,”

which this Court construes as a request for a preliminary injunction. A hearing on the motion for

TRO was held on February 13, 2006. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion in

part by issuing a TRO.

I. Background

Plaintiff AFT Michigan is a labor organization, the Michigan affiliate of the American

Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 are two employees of a

Michigan Board of Education. Plaintiff AFT Michigan is bringing this action on behalf of its 35,000

members against Defendants State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of State Police, and the

Michigan Department of Education.

This lawsuit concerns the implementation of a recent statute passed by the Michigan

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 4:06-cv-10612-PVG-SDP Document 4 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 2 of 5

Legislature, 2005 PA 130. 2005 PA 130 is part of several other recently enacted bills which require

the immediate discharge of any school employee who has been convicted of an offense which would

require their name to be posted on Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration List. The statute also

allows the discharge of employees who have been convicted of any other felony.

In preparation for the implementation of 2005 PA 130, a preliminary list was prepared by

Defendants, containing the names of public school employees who are reported to have criminal

records. The list was prepared by comparing and matching the names and social security numbers

of public schools employees with those with criminal records. The list was then forwarded to local

school boards for their review. Defendants admit that the list erroneously contains the names of

public school employees who do not have criminal records.

Plaintiffs seek a TRO and a temporary injunction enjoining Defendants from releasing the

Department of State Police list to anyone, and to require Defendants to recall any copies that have

already been distributed.

II. TRO Standard

The issuance of a TRO is governed by Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

which states in relevant part:

A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the
adverse party or that party’s attorney only if

(1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified
complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition,
and

(2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which

2
 Case 4:06-cv-10612-PVG-SDP Document 4 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 3 of 5

have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice
should not be required.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has stated that “[e]x parte temporary

restraining orders are no doubt necessary in certain circumstances, but under federal law they should

be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing

irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose

Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (citation

omitted). See also Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88 (1974) (“This Court has stated that ‘the

basis of injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm and inadequacy of

legal remedies,’” citing Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 506-507 (1959)).

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs argue that the list is harmful to the several named public school employees who

have never been convicted of any crime. Plaintiffs argue that because of the language of 2005 PA

130, local school boards will be inclined to terminate any person on the list, even if they are innocent

of a crime. Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that irreparable injury will result to the innocent people

named on the list because they will be terminated from their employment and will be unjustly

labeled as felons.

Defendants allege that the erroneous list that has been distributed to local school boards is

a preliminary list, and not the list envisaged by 2005 PA 130. Therefore, Defendants argue that the

employees who are falsely named as having criminal convictions will not suffer irreparable injury.

The Sixth Circuit has noted that “a plaintiff’s harm is not irreparable if it is fully

3
 Case 4:06-cv-10612-PVG-SDP Document 4 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 4 of 5

compensable by money damages.” Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir. 1992).

Yet, “[a]n injury is not fully compensable by money damages if the nature of the plaintiff’s loss

would make damages difficult to calculate.” Id. This Court finds that even though the current list

is only a “preliminary” list, there is still danger of immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs that

cannot be fully remedied by money damages, as there is a very great likelihood that an innocent

person named on the list will suffer an injury to their reputation and a possible discharge of

employment.

Additionally, since it appears at this time that Defendants will suffer no loss or damage by

reason of the issuance of this temporary restraining order, no bond or other security is required of

Plaintiff.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO is GRANTED, in accordance

with the conditions set forth in the TRO entered simultaneously with this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for a

preliminary injunction by February 21, 2006 and Plaintiffs may reply to Defendants’ response by

February 24, 2006.

. SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 at 4:55 p.m. s/Paul V. Gadola

HONORABLE PAUL V. GADOLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
Case 4:06-cv-10612-PVG-SDP Document 4 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 5 of 5

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on February 14, 2006 , I electronically filed the foregoing paper with
the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
the following:
Mark H. Cousens , and I
hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the
following non-ECF participants: D. J. Pascoe .

s/Ruth A. Brissaud
Ruth A. Brissaud, Case Manager
(810) 341-7845